This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Last I checked (a couple of seconds ago) the Republic of China (Taiwan) is incorrectly listed among the Five Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council under the History section. Cfran94 ( talk) 02:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfran94 ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

A representative for the Republic of China filled the "China" spot from the UN's creation until 1971, when it was ejected to be replaced by the PRC representative. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 08:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The head of FAO has changed. Could someone change it? I did not know hot to change it. Thanks. -- Dfdc ( talk) 23:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The mandate of Jacques Diouf is good for the rest of the year, just that his successor has been elected. I guess I'll fix it when the time comes, but no guarantees, January is still a bit away. -- ... there's more than what can be linked. 14:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is ongoing at Talk:List of sovereign states under the Bundling of "UN observer states" and "member states of UN Specialized Agencies" subhead about things like:

• Should Kosovo and Holy See really be bundled together?
• Should permanent observers (i.e. Holy See) have its own category?
• Should the list be amended so it does not incorrectly say that the Vatican City is a UN observer....its not, the Holy See is.
• if Kosovo is listed with the Holy See, must Niue and Cook Islands also be so listed.

Not many editors are involved and there is a desire to broaden the participation. Hope some of you wish to contribute. Just click there and give your views. Thanks. NelsonSudan ( talk) 18:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Is South Korea not Internationally recognized because its not on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.96.155 ( talk) 19:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I can't edit this article, so I will leave this information here and maybe someone can include it for me.

Under section "Reform" the article states that "There have also been numerous calls for the UN Security Council's membership to be increased".

I think we should include after that sentence: "or eliminated". Refering to the membership, not the Council.

Here are two links reporting on Canadian and Argentinian claims over this matter.

"Veto powers questioned at the United Nations". 25 September 2011. Retrieved 2011-09-27. {{ cite web}}: Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) ( help)

"Statement by Canadian Ambassador Allan Rock on Security Council Reform". Global Policy Forum. 12 July 2005. Retrieved 2007-09-08.

Thank you very much! 190.195.39.223 ( talk) 00:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? How can memebership be eliminated but the council not eliminated? Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 09:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if he means that certain members be eliminated from council membership? If so, the sources don't appear to support that stance. In the Florida Statesman source, de Kirchner is calling for the total elimination of the permanent status, saying the veto powers had become an obstacle for global stability. - people have indeed called for elimination of the P5's permanent status or elimination of their veto power, but this source doesn't support a call for elimination of council membership. The statement by Canadian Ambassador Allan Rock is expressing that Canada supports enlargement of the Security Council, but opposes adding new permanent members to the council. The draft proposal circulated by Italy on behalf of Canada and other member states suggests adding seats permanently allocated to regional bodies who would select representatives and determine their tenure. Ambassador Rock's statement doesn't seem to recommend the elimination of membership, rather an adjustment to its permanence in pursuit of dynamic continuity. One might be able to say "or restructured" at the end of the sentence in question, but these sources don't support "or eliminated." John Shandy` • talk 16:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to add details about UNICEF in the Table. Data will be taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNICEF

Cal suman ( talk) 11:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Add the specific edit here and request the edit again. CTJF83 16:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I read that in 1968, Spanish was declared as a working language. Source: http://pagina-del-dia.euroresidentes.es/hechos-historicos-del-dia/gadget-hechos-historicos.php http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/23_de_diciembre -- HC 5555 ( talk) 03:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The flag for Burma is incorrect. It currently has the flag of the Republic of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acumen321 ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that is the flag Myanmar was using at the time U Thant was Secretary-General. It is practically indiscernible from the flag of the Republic of China at this size.-- ... there's more than what can be linked. 19:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan administered Kashmir is recognized by the UN as a disputed area. Why it is being shown as a part of Pakistan in the map here? Few days before, Indian government had raised objections to the UN for showing Pakistan administered Kashmir as a part of Pakistan & the UN apologized for that. Buy, in the map here it is still shown. If the correction in the map is not made as soon as possible, it will be reported to the Indian government. SourabhDev ( talk) 13:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Because it's controlled by Pakistan, same reason the Indian part is shown as part of India. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 13:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

But the UN considers as disputed area so it should be shown as disputed area. SourabhDev ( talk) 15:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We'd have to do the same with the Indian claim. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 16:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there an official list of which territorial claims the UN recognises and which it does not? That might be an interesting issue to pursue. But adjusting maps that do not purport to show the "true" boundaries of states but only the areas they administer to recognise the myriad of various claims and counterclaims is nigh impossible, even if warranted (which I don't think it is). - Jarry1250  ^{Deliberation needed} 16:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: The United Nations has announced that by 2100 years the world population will rise to 15 billion! Estimates have shocked experts. They argue that these figure refer to curbing population growth in order to preserve the planet`s resources. By 2050will become the most populated country India, where will live 1,69 billion people, more than China which has a One Child Policy! Therefore it is necessary that the world, led by United Nations, carries out a wise population policy, because is an open question: Will the Earth withstand so many people? 78.2.91.240 ( talk) 06:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Spooky. OKelly ( talk) 20:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Somebody edit the members in the section of this article. Lebanon is no longer a member and has been replaced my Morocco. 72.53.155.218 ( talk) 21:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Security Council list updated per request. Mediatech492 ( talk) 23:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: The United Nations has announced that by 2100 years the world population will rise to 15 billion! Estimates have shocked experts. They argue that these figure refer to curbing population growth in order to preserve the planet`s resources. By 2050will become the most populated country India, where will live 1,69 billion people, more than China which has a One Child Policy! Therefore it is necessary that the world, led by United Nations, carries out a wise population policy, because is an open question: Will the Earth withstand so many people? 78.2.91.240 ( talk) 06:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Spooky. OKelly ( talk) 20:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Somebody edit the members in the section of this article. Lebanon is no longer a member and has been replaced my Morocco. 72.53.155.218 ( talk) 21:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Security Council list updated per request. Mediatech492 ( talk) 23:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the real name of the UN "United Nations Organization"? In all the other languages it is called like that and another abbreviation is "UNO". So why don't we mention it in the introduction? -- 111Alleskönner ( talk) 20:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The United Nations official website refers to them as the "United Nations" or "UN", nowhere on their English language website do they add "Organization" to their official title. Mediatech492 ( talk) 22:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

yea, they call themselves "UN" most of the time, but another official name is "UNO" (-> here). I think, especially because the name of the UN is UNO in every other language (Organisation des Nations unies, Организация Объединённых Наций, Organización de las Naciones Unidasin) whe souhld mention it... -- 111Alleskönner ( talk) 14:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is unesco not listed along with other un organizations in the preamble yet who and fao are?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.59.209 ( talk) 13:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It's listed number nine among the Specialized institutions... -- ... there's more than what can be linked. 16:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The financial figures under the budget section are from 2005/2006. Probably could use an update. Current figures are available at : http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/factsheet.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.57.44 ( talk) 16:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is actually the same link that is used as reference for the 2005/6 data. Maybe we should find some other source to cite, one that is for a given time interval, instead of a "current" point in time. -- ... there's more than what can be linked. 19:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

So sorry for not doing this in formal matter, this has just been bugging me. Andorra does not show up on the UN Map of member nations, and it should considering its size. Could someone add the blue dot over it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.8.206.6 ( talk) 03:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a perfect way to communicate. I have added Andorra, thanks! CMD ( talk) 10:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• The animation does not work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdsdh1 ( talk • contribs) 16:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand which one of the bold sentences is the correct one and which one not, because as I understood they say exactly the opposite.

When the General Assembly votes on important questions, a two-thirds majority of those present and voting is required. Examples of important questions include: recommendations on peace and security; election of members to organs; admission, suspension, and expulsion of members; and, budgetary matters. All other questions are decided by majority vote. Each member country has one vote. Apart from approval of budgetary matters, resolutions are not binding on the members. The Assembly may make recommendations on any matters within the scope of the UN, except matters of peace and security that are under Security Council consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milllimallikas ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the two sentences - the GA can do as it wishes unless the SC tells it not to, plain and simple. Though it might need to be reworded for clarity.-- ... there's more than what can be linked. 19:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please modify The United Nations (abbreviated UN in English, and ONU in French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish)

TX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.48.102 ( talk) 13:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Italian is not one of the Official languages of the United Nations - such information would be besides the point. -- ... there's more than what can be linked. 14:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to remove "too many subsections", please do it manually. The reason being is because many intermediate edits fix misplaced content, such as environmentalism was in the wrong place, and some health issues were also in the wrong place, among others. I repeat, if you insist on removing sub-headings, please do so manually. Pass a Method talk 14:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

For someone asking someone else to do something manually, it's ironic that you reverted what was actually a mostly manual edit, reverting the copyedits I had made as well. If you want to shift things, why not do that manually? CMD ( talk) 15:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

When i said "manual edits" i also meant the undo button. You have just reverted it to the version where content is misplaced. *shakes head* You're an annoying editor. I hope i dont meet you again on wikipedia. Pass a Method talk 20:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I did use the undo button. Perhaps you should learn to discuss your edits, rather than just dismissing others. CMD ( talk) 20:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not use the undo button. Please simply use the "edit" tab next to each subsection or at the top of the article. Pass a Method talk 21:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What happened to "please do it manually...i also meant the undo button"? And why are you doing what you're telling me not to do? CMD ( talk) 21:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems odd there is no criticisms section to the article. I remember reading or hearing that wars actually have become more frequent since the inception of the UN. (I am to assume it mentions somewhere in its charter that one of its goals is to reduce and/or eliminate war). Im sure there are many other criticisms as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa ( talk • contribs) 10:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

More people=more wars, not exactly the fault of the UN. Besides, there's no praise section, so why should there be a criticism one? CMD ( talk) 13:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Criticism sections#Approaches to presenting criticism, integrating criticisms throughout the article is most ideal, rather than having an explicit section devoted to criticisms. So, even though there's no criticism section, you will likely find criticisms of the UN or various aspects of it as you read through the article - there are certainly lots of measured criticisms levied by academics and diplomats that are worth including. John Shandy` • talk 16:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The template Template:UNnum has been recently created, and apparently it has caught the attention of editors, having been transcluded to a rather large number of pages. Strange thing no actual debate took place about it, though. Thought people should know. -- ... there's more than what can be linked. 09:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE ADD "Portuguese" to the first line of.. "ONU in French, Spanish and Italian". Both Brazil and Portugal use ONU (Organização das Nações Unidas) to describe the organ. Please add it to there. Thank you very much

Portuguese is not one of the six official languages of the United Nations, so if we would add that, we would need to add all the other national official languages for all 193 member states... -- ... there's more than what can be linked. 11:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Rome is home to the headquarters of 3 distinct UN organisations, but this does not make it an official UN Office - these are exclusively Vienna, Geneva, and Nairobi, and New York being the overall headquarters. Following that logic - adding cities with more than one UN organisation headquarters - Washington DC would also be one of the UN Offices. This is not so - these Offices are part of the UN Secretariat: Nairobi, Geneva, and Vienna. -- ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\mathcal {M}}}$ ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,}}}$ ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}t)}$ = ? 08:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There are so many problems with the UN, and yet there is no section to even look into those views. Security seats are wrong, for not only has it made marriage to countries who do not respect human rights; such as china and russia, but just given only a few seats to a few countries, just because they are more powerful? well screw that.

The truth is that the UN can be a whore sometimes, that sells the native ideals of countries, and wants to provide universal free abortions. May my American country have the sense to realize that the best and most honest decisions are not made in a committee, but independently. We should just drop parts of the UN, but still keep countries open to talking with each other, and try to keep a quieter hand in the affairs of the rest of the world (this may mean not attacking Iran). God bless.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge spouse ( talk • contribs)

Such sections are discouraged and any legit content in that direction should be incorporated in existing sections where they might be relevant. TMCk ( talk) 02:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Trusteeship council was supposedly ended in 1994 when Palau gained independence and in 1990 when Namibia gained independence? I don't know which one is true but I became a bit confused reading that part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamichaels ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

So, with me being an I.P and all, I can't edit this article without remembering an old password or making a new account. Since I'm unclear about Wikipedia's multi-account policy, I'd rather just stay an I.P. Anyway, in the same paragraph that it talks about criticism of U.N by fairly prominent people around the time it was founded, it says that "In 2011, the UN passed its first resolution recognising LGBT rights". Ignoring the misspelling of recognizing (why is there not a typo bot on this site?), this is not only out of place within the paragraph, it is not relevant to the history of the U.N as an institution. That's a footnote in the history of LGBT rights, and less than a footnote in an article about the United Nations. If that's going to be added into the history section, might as well make a chart listing everything the United Nations has ever said or done since it founded that could ever be of any historical significance, ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.83.168.53 ( talk) 06:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that content had been removed from history before, and shouldn't have gone back in. I've removed it again. Regards, CMD ( talk) 11:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I have re-added the above image which is removed by User:Rich Farmbrough without edit summary on the Reform and criticism section; since the image depicts one of the worst human tragedies human kind ever faced and reviewed by the UN itself its fault and found guilty. Sudar123 ( talk) 02:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

In the introduction it states "including every internationally recognized sovereign state in the world but Vatican City". How is that statement correct? Several UN states are only partially recognised, notably Israel and PR China; how does this differ from Kosovo for example, which isn't a member? Then we have new states which are in the UN like South Sudan and Montenegro which haven't explicitly been diplomatically recognised by every other UN member. So how do we define what an "internationally recognised sovereign state" is? IJA ( talk) 20:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Your examples do not work. The UN can include "every internationally recognized sovereign state in the world but Vatican City", and additionally contain some states where recognition is in dispute. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 20:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly - all internationally recognised states are UN members, but not all UN members are internationally recognised. And you have the Pope who is outside of all of that.-- ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\mathcal {M}}}$ ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,}}}$ ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}t)}$ = ? 23:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You are still avoiding the question. China (PRC) is recognized by 171 UN members, Israel by 161. Both of these are UN members themselves and are (apparently) "internationally recognized sovereign states". The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is recognized by 84 UN member states, the Republic of Kosovo by 97 and the State of Palestine by 131. None of these is a member of the UN and (apparently) none of them is an "internationally recognized sovereign state". Why not? Where is the magic dividing line? To me your definition sounds circular: "The UN contains every internationally recognized sovereign state except the Vatica" and "the internationally recognized sovereign states are the UN members plus the Vatican." -- Khajidha ( talk) 23:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I don't really know what to tell you - shall we simply remove that sentence? This is a question of the definition of the sovereignity of states, and does not directly relate to the United Nations. Except that being member of the UN has become the unofficial measure of sovereignty. -- ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\mathcal {M}}}$ ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,}}}$ ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}t)}$ = ? 11:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a necessary sentence. I'm sure readers can make their own conclusions from the map and country list. CMD ( talk) 09:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Are the Cook Islands and Niue internationally recognized UN non-member sovereign states? Should they be mentioned? Or are they not considered sovereign states? πr² ( t • c) 13:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Cook Islands are a self governing territory associated with New Zealand, and not considered a fully independent state by the UN. Niue is an independent nation that is recognized by the UN but is so far not a UN member state. Mediatech492 ( talk) 19:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, maybe Niue is not a sovereign state (after reading Foreign relations of Niue), hmm... πr² ( t • c) 02:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Wondering if perhaps population, GDP, area and so on should be added to the info box seeing as it is for articles like the EU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.205.158 ( talk) 03:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC) hey how yall doning by vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.110.126 ( talk) 23:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Should the hymn of The United Nations be added to the page?-- Prcc27 ( talk) 07:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say no, it has no officially recognized status. Mediatech492 ( talk) 08:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence currently reads:

"The United Nations (UN; French: Organisation des Nations unies, ONU) is world's largest,foremost, and most prominent international organization."

There is a glaring need for the article "the" placed after the word "is" and before the contraction "world's". It bothered me that this type of error was made on a page as important as this one that it honestly distracted me from reading further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpais88 ( talk • contribs) 04:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You could have fixed it yourself, you know. Anyway, it's fixed now. However, it could use some sort of sources - yes, it is clearly obvious that it is true, but in an encyclopaedia we cannot allow ourselves the luxury of stating that any one thing is plainly obvious. -- ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\mathcal {M}}}$ ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,}}}$ ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}t)}$ = ? 13:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

There are more than grammatical errors there; that whole sentence is non- WP:NPOV and needs to be deleted:

• foremost is vague (pure opinion) and is being used as a WP:PEACOCK (or at least WP:WEASEL) word; has no business being here
• most prominent -- again, in whose opinion? (also a synonym of the sense in which foremost was used)
• world's largest -- how do you define this? Just because almost all the nations of the world are members doesn't make that so. Does it mean if you total up everyone who works for the UN (ambassadors and staff) you would get the largest number? Needs to be verified.

I deleted foremost already because it is so blatant, and tagged the remainder as not verified in the body. (Also read MOS:LEAD; it is unnecessary and undesirable to clutter a well-written lead with redundant citations to what should be in the body.) I now believe the whole sentence should go. There is nothing at all "plainly obvious" about those three statements. The lead sentence should actively define the topic, and not be a judgemental statement about it. The lead was just fine as it was before: "The United Nations is an international organization whose stated aims are ..." If the statement about being the largest can be verified, it should go third. JustinTime55 ( talk) 21:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I've re-added the flagicons in the infobox, because it is relevant to show that the UN is an international organisation, and as such has individuals from various nations serving in its leadership. If you think otherwise, then let's hear your argumentation. -- ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\mathcal {M}}}$ ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,}}}$ ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}t)}$ = ? 14:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's great -- Shax ( talk) 21:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The process and the reason of taking the decision regarding localization the General Assembly in New York are not described. According to the logic, the General Assembly should be placed on neutral territory, or, more conveniently and efficiently - on the Internet. Also it is not clear of how the decision was made to approve the official languages, which are much smaller than the member countries. Thus discrimination of some nations and exaltation of others are observed on organizational issues - this may be added to the criticism. -- Alex-korolev ( talk) 09:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The United Nations Headquarters, including the General Assembly, are on international territory, though it is a bit troublesome that it is in the middle of US territory. And your mentioning the Internet - the UN was created in 1945-46! And on the topic of the official languages, the place for that subject is Official languages of the United Nations. -- ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\mathcal {M}}}$ ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,}}}$ ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}t)}$ 20:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This territory is controlled by army and police of the single country. So it is international but is not a Neutral territory. This allows USA to control the organization single-handedly, prohibit the entry for some members, for example. Other counties may have other opinion regarding existing organization controlling. The UN was created in 1945-46 but now is 2013! The efficiently organization structure of United Nations Headquarters may looks like a virtual media with physical realization on the server placed on a truly neutral territory with equal access for all countries. The number of official languages should be equal to the number of countries. At the present day discrimination of little nations exists. -- Alex-korolev ( talk) 08:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You are arguing how thing should be. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia - we are here to tell how thing are. If you want to argue, go do it someplace else.-- ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\mathcal {M}}}$ ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,}}}$ ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}t)}$ 11:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I offer to add more information about the topics pointed above. The criticism is superficial in the article(only about separate events), fundamental remarks on the effectiveness of the structure and work of UN should be added. -- Alex-korolev ( talk) 16:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do you have to ask? If you have some good sources, go ahead and add the info!-- ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\mathcal {M}}}$ ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,}}}$ ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}t)}$ 16:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately i'm not a specialist in politics or sociology and do not know good sources. But I see the way to do the article (and the UN) better. -- Alex-korolev ( talk) 17:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I've again removed a second paragraph describing the UN's failure in Sri Lanka's Civil War that seems undue weight to me. I do agree it belongs in the article, and I in no way mean to trivialize the magnitude of that failure. It's simply that in an article of this scope, adding an extra paragraph on any of the UN's interventions or noninterventions unbalances things. For example, the failure in Rwanda gets one sentence, as does Bosnia. The Korean War and First Gulf War get a sentence apiece. The UN mediation failures in the Six-Day War get a third of a sentence. Somalia gets half a sentence. The Congo intervention gets two sentences, but only because it's necessary to mention that the Secretary-General died in it. The Suez crisis gets only half a sentence. In nonmilitary terms, Dag Hammarskjöld gets only one sentence and Kofi Annan gets only a sentence or two, and Kurt Waldheim isn't even mentioned in the prose yet. I don't mean to say that any of these things aren't important; it's just that there's a tremendous amount of ground to cover, and this is written in summary style.

Perhaps more can be added on some of these when I expand "Peacekeeping" later today, though; certainly the material could be added in the expanded form to the UN Peacekeepers article. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 11:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't noticed the discussion here when I was adding the content back. But if you could allow once sentence on Bosnia why you haven't allow at least on for Sri Lanka. I am adding one sentence on Sri Lanka. HudsonBreeze ( talk) 11:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There is one sentence on Sri Lanka already that I added to the history section: "In 2013, an internal review of UN actions in the final battles of the Sri Lankan Civil War in 2009 concluded that the organization had suffered "systemic failure". WP:LAYOUT recommends avoiding one-sentence standalone paragraphs, so it was combined with other, similar events in the logical section. Does this cover your concerns? I think it's undue weight to talk about this twice in the article. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 12:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't noticed that; that is fine. HudsonBreeze ( talk) 12:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 13:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

As part of an article improvement drive for WProject Human rights, I'm hoping to bring this article to GA status in the next month or two. It'll still be a few weeks before I start doing any major rewrites (if major rewrites are even needed), but I wanted to start out by asking regular editors/watchers of this article: what do you feel still needs to be improved here? Is there anything you'd like me to focus on? -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking over the article in more detail today, I feel like things are in reasonably good shape and already approaching GA status. I'll try to address the citation needed tags in the next few days, and start double-checking citations where I can. More substantially, I'd like to expand some historical content and reduce the focus on the past decade a bit. (To give one example, the "Greening the Blue" initiative doesn't seem like a major enough milestone in the UN's sixty-year history to merit its own section.) If anyone disagrees with any revisions I make, of course, feel free to revert me and we can discuss here. Thanks to everyone who worked on this article before me; looking forward to working with you all, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 16:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I see you citing a lot of books. I've always found such citations on Wikipedia very troublesome - books are generally not so easily available on the internet, and we can't be realistic in expecting people to own giant libraries so they could check the validity of our claims. Could you try to use more urls as sources?-- ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\mathcal {M}}}$ ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,}}}$ ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}t)}$ 17:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hm, that's an unusual request. I understand your point, but books are often more comprehensive, stable, and authoritative than internet sources, and are extremely standard for GAs and FAs. (My experience as a GA reviewer has been that Google Books and Amazon search allow me to verify most offline citations in any case.) That said, I don't have any problem with you adding supplementary URLs if you like, and I'll avoid replacing any links to reliable internet sources with book citations alone. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 17:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed! -- ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\mathcal {M}}}$ ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,}}}$ ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}t)}$ 18:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Two proposed changes

Two changes I'm hoping to start implementing today:

1. To expand the "Creation" section into a more general "History" section. I don't want this section to overpower the article, but we should at least mention some notable events of the organization's history--Congo intervention, Dag Hammerskjold's plane crash, Korean War, etc.--and give an overview of how the organization has evolved over its lifetime.
2. To reframe the "Criticism" section as "Evaluations of the United Nations"; it seems to clearly violate WP:NPOV to include a section of negative material without also including positive evaluations. For example, the many Nobel Prizes parts of the organization have won appear to be largely omitted, whereas Dore Gold alone seems to get 2-3 paragraphs.

Let me know if anyone has any thoughts or objections, and, of course, feel free to revert and we can discuss further. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 12:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Getting close

I feel like we're getting close to where this will be ready for a GA nomination. So far I've focused on sourcing what's already there, winnowing parts that suffer from WP:RECENTISM or excessive detail, and adding a history section and a broader range of evaluations. I'm now pretty confident about what's there--but is there anything left that's missing? Let me know your thoughts. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 12:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As a note to self, something about the UN panels on climate change should presumably be added. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 12:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Still needs sourced material on disaster relief and food aid. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Passed by -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:United Nations/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chris troutman ( talk · contribs) 01:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is " clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   In the Peacekeeping section I would reword the sentence Disagreements in the Security Council about military action and intervention are seen as having failed to prevent the 1971 Bangladesh genocide,[94] the 1970s Cambodian genocide,[95] and the 1994 Rwandan Genocide,[96] failed to stop the 1995 Srebrenica massacre and protect a refugee haven there by authorising peacekeepers to use force,[96] and failed to complete the 1992–93 peacekeeping operations during the Somali Civil War to something clearer, like "disagreements...are seen as having failed to prevent the 1971 genocide, the 1970s genocide, and the 1994 genocide as well as having failed to either stop the 1995 massacre or complete the 1992-93 peacekeeping operations." I find Sentence diagramming is useful in these cases. Chris Troutman ( talk) 22:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

   Quite right. When one tries to pack too many ideas into one sentence, it's easy to get lost. After trying different structures out, I decided to split the sentence like this: "Disagreements ... are seen as having failed to prevent the [x1], the [x2], and the [x3]. Similarly, UN inaction is sometimes blamed for allowing the [x4] without protecting [x5] by authorising [x6], and for failing to complete the [x7]." Does this resolve the issue? – Quadell ^{( talk)} 16:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

   That second sentence is still tricky. Why not say "Similarly, UN inaction is sometimes blamed for failing to either prevent the 1995 Srebrenica massacre or complete the 1992–93 peacekeeping operations during the Somali Civil War." The timeline of not allowing peacekeepers to use force, thereby failing to protect the refugee haven, culminating in the massacre is explained in the article about the massacre. Of course, I don't think there's any sometimes about it. I think anybody blames the UN for both of those failures. Chris Troutman ( talk) 01:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

   Yeah, I want to be as NPOV as possible on controversial periods of UN history, but you're right, no one could reasonably claim that UN action did not allow these things to happen. I went with your wording. – Quadell ^{( talk)} 15:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   In the Security Council section, the section in citation 60 (from Fasulo) establishes that the P5 has veto power, but it does not specify between types of resolutions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

   You're right, I can see those pages of Fasulo in Google Books, and it isn't there. It's also unsourced in the United Nations Security Council veto power article. When I research the concept, I find some sources (e.g. Bardo Fassbender's "UN Security Council Reform and the Right of Veto: A Constitutional Perspective") that indicate there is no difference in practice between procedural and substantive resolutions it terms of veto power. So I've removed that claim. – Quadell ^{( talk)} 17:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

   In the Post Cold War section, the citation makes no mention that either Britain or Singapore joined the US in withdrawing from UNESCO. Chris Troutman ( talk) 22:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

   Happily, I found a source that does support the claim, and I added it. – Quadell ^{( talk)} 17:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

   Many thanks. Chris Troutman ( talk) 01:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Thanks for taking this on, Chris. As you've probably gathered, I haven't edited this article much myself; Khazar did all the hard work, and retired shortly after nominating it. I'm certainly will to help resolve any issues you find, though I may not be able to do the sort of major rewriting or source checking that Khazar could have done. (Hopefully it won't need that - the article appears to me to be a strong contender.) Anyway, I look forward to your comments. – Quadell ^{( talk)} 12:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

With that in mind I've been tweaking page numbers in citations as I find necessary. In some cases entire chapters were cited, which is unhelpful. I'm trying to stick to making only minor changes like that in light of your statement without overstepping my role as GA reviewer. Chris Troutman ( talk) 22:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I believe I have addressed all the issues you raised. Please let me know if there's more I should do. All the best, – Quadell ^{( talk)} 17:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm still checking other citations as I have time. It'll be a little while longer before I can properly respond. I'll let you know if there's anything else. Chris Troutman ( talk) 01:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have kept you waiting so long. I'm busy during the week and there were so many citations to go through. This is on hold only for that one sentence. Chris Troutman ( talk) 01:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad that such an important article received a thorough review! – Quadell ^{( talk)} 15:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course. I also had to go back and correct that Bush quote. The sentence in the article was accurate to the source material in Yang. The problem was that Yang among others was quoting Glennon and Glennon misquoted Bush. I felt it made sense to reinsert the sentence as a criticism, but providing the correct quote for context. I'll likely go back and insert a note to explain all this. I consider this job done. Chris Troutman ( talk) 19:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The citation that supposedly supports the UN's motto as "It's your world!" (in the infobox) doesn't really work at this point. It points to UN.org, and indeed when you go there and hover over the English language website link "It's your world!" does pop up. However the only other place this appears is at the top of the UN front page (along with other stuff). A couple of quick Google searches and I can't find anything that supports that this actually is the UN's motto, as opposed to simply a nice statement to put on a website.

Decided to flag on the talk page that at the moment this seems to be Original Research masquerading as sourced material. Whoever added this has made the jump from "It appears when you first go to UN.org and is then among the stuff at the top of the front page" to "therefore it must be the UN's motto". Do we actually have any reliable source that has stated this is the (official or unofficial) motto of the UN? Because otherwise it might just be the motto of UN web design...-- 31.185.216.157 ( talk) 14:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

So that's your theory? "It's your world" is just some phrase the webmaster posted on the website? Perhaps it is more reasonable to assess that it's the motto of the UN. But no, there is no explicit source that says what the UN motto is. Chris Troutman ( talk) 01:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

No. My point is that we don't know what it is. You say that "Perhaps" it is "reasonable to assess" that it is the UN motto. So you admit it is Original Research then? That was my point. The source does not support that it is the UN motto, just that it is the first thing to pop up on the web page. That this makes it the UN motto is an assessment that Wikipedians have made. And yeah we have no idea that this goes any further than the UN web page, that this is actually the motto of the UN (a motto for such an important institution would be quite significant and yet we have not even a single physical plaque or sign or anything except that webpage with that phrase on it). If there is no reliable source anyone can find to support that it actually is the motto then to comply with WP:V and WP:OR we should remove it from the infobox. The UN may not even have a motto. (IP's changed but I'm the OP)-- 87.113.180.161 ( talk) 21:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It isn't in the UN Charter and I couldn't find it anywhere on the UN website - though it has been used by at least one other organisation. That doesn't mean that it has never been officially adopted by the UN, but I think it does mean that it probably hasn't. Someone in the UN has decided that it should be used, so it might be considered to have the status of an advertising slogan - in six languages, but possibly for temporary use. But, if we are to call it the UN motto we need to know that it has been formally adopted as such. And we don't, so we shouldn't.-- Wikiain ( talk) 00:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed it. If a good source appears in the future, we can always reinstate it. Inglok ( talk) 17:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

What about stating that it's the organization's slogan.. would that be more accurate? -- Prcc27 ( talk) 02:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The "Secretariat" subsection deals extensively with the Secretaries-General of the UN (to the extent of giving a table of names) without a single word about the Secretariat itself. It needs to be rewritten IMO, keeping the focus on the Secretariat itself. The SG stuff can probably be a sub-subsection.— indopug ( talk) 10:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.-- ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\mathcal {M}}}$ ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,}}}$ ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}t)}$ 12:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Above is the question. Any answers? Background is that presently the only flag shown for Jerusalem on the Jersualem article is an Israeli flag. I asked why and some one asked me, well, you find us a Palestinian one. I don't know the answer. Best, Frenchmalawi ( talk) 15:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The correct French spelling is not "Organisation des Nations Unies" but " Organisation des Nations unies". Can somebody correct the infobox? Thanks! 144.85.187.212 ( talk) 20:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC).

The French texts of the UN website and the Charter have "Unies", so let's stay with that here. There was some talk about this in fr:WP Discussion, sometimes heated, but it did not get to a consensus. Wikiain ( talk) 02:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to United Nations has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

First paragraph contains errors. The League of Nations was created I response to World War I, not World War II. Thank you. Jweinrich93 ( talk) 06:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - You are misreading this, "the organization was created following the Second World War" refers to the UN, not the League of Nations. Arjayay ( talk) 06:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

it should go down-- Crossswords ( talk) 17:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to United Nations has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

77.100.255.92 ( talk) 15:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U| Technical 13}} ^{( e • t • c)} 16:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

In the list of united nations programs & their headquaters- i noticed that UNEP & it's HQ Nairobi Kenya is not listed. Why is that so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.142.249.87 ( talk) 00:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The map currently used in the infobox marks a number of territories of the members as sovereign member states - such as Hong Kong an Macao. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.85.148.164 ( talk) 17:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

te gustan las pollas lo se — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.215.224 ( talk) 11:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to United Nations has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change of President of General Assembly. Niteform ( talk) 12:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Cannolis ( talk) 12:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to United Nations has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

117.199.139.214 ( talk) 02:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. – Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Should would make a drop-down list of other major U.N. headquarters in the info box? -- Zurkhardo ( talk) 17:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is the name in the lede translated into French but not the other UN languages? Gob Lofa ( talk) 03:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I would guess there are too many "UN languages" to translate to all of them. It's not really necessary as there are links on the left margin to the other-language articles about the UN. Chris Troutman ( talk) 01:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There's six offical UN languages. I don't see why French would trump any of the other four in an English language article. Gob Lofa ( talk) 02:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

French is a lingua franca across a lot of Europe as well as parts of North America, Africa, and Asia. It's not too unusual to see. I'd recommend removing the French translation rather than add the other four, if it really bothers you. Chris Troutman ( talk) 02:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone got there ahead of me. Bon. Gob Lofa ( talk) 16:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a 404 Not Found link. Does anyone know if it's moved, or just no longer exists? I'm reluctant to mark it as a dead link until we have more data (we might simply just have to change the URL). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:8082:9670:2C65:7632:2F3E:E048 ( talk) 16:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done The UN split the single page into a series of pages. I added an archive URL, although not from as late as the accessdate. The citation will have to be re-done the next time this comes up for assessment. Thanks for letting us know about this issue. Chris Troutman ( talk) 01:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Iberidze ( talk) 13:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add, in the list of UN organisations - UNICRI - United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute, UNICRI is a United Nations entity established in 1967 to support countries worldwide in preventing crime and facilitating criminal justice. Its HQ is in Turin, Italy, and it is headed by Mr. Jonathan Lucas from Seychelles.

Wikipedia has a page on UNICRI. Normal URL is www.unicri.it

Under "human rights", the statement "The United Nations Commission on Human Rights was formed in 1993 to oversee human rights issues for the UN, following the recommendation of that year's World Conference on Human Rights." is incorrect. The following would be accurate (see the article on the Commission):

"The United Nations Commission on Human Rights was established in 1946 by ECOSOC, created under the terms of the United Nations Charter (specifically, under Article 68). It was the UN's principal mechanism and international forum concerned with the promotion and protection of human rights."

The existing sentence appears to refer instead to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. This is a separate entity. The following sentence could be added at the end of the "human rights" section with a link to the article on the High Commissioner ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_United_Nations_High_Commissioner_for_Human_Rights):

"The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is a United Nations agency established by the UN General Assembly on 20 December 1993 in the wake of the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.164.203.188 ( talk) 12:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Source [156] states the correct number, yet someone had a hard time doing the maths. It's approximately 5.15 billion US Dollars. 91.141.1.202 ( talk) 17:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)Matt